Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 1642–1653 | Cite as

Assessment of occupational exposure to pesticide mixtures with endocrine-disrupting activity

  • Hie Ling WongEmail author
  • David G. Garthwaite
  • Carmel T. Ramwell
  • Colin D. Brown
Research Article
  • 55 Downloads

Abstract

Occupational exposure to pesticide mixtures comprising active substance(s) and/or co-formulant(s) with known/possible endocrine-disrupting activity was assessed using long-term activity records for 50 professional operators representing arable and orchard cropping systems in Greece, Lithuania, and the UK. Exposure was estimated using the harmonised Agricultural Operator Exposure Model, and risk was quantified as a point of departure index (PODI) using the lowest no observed (adverse) effect level. Use of substances with known/possible endocrine activity was common, with 43 of the 50 operators applying at least one such active substance on more than 50% of spray days; at maximum, one UK operator sprayed five such active substances and 10 such co-formulants in a single day. At 95th percentile, total exposure was largest in the UK orchard system (0.041 × 10−2 mg kg bw−1 day−1) whereas risk was largest in the Greek cropping systems (PODI 0.053 × 10−1). All five cropping systems had instances indicating potential for risk when expressed at a daily resolution (maximum PODI 1.2–10.7). Toxicological data are sparse for co-formulants, so combined risk from complex mixtures of active substances and co-formulants may be larger in reality.

Keywords

Professional operator Active substance Co-formulant Combined effect Risk Regulation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge sponsorship of this research by the Ministry of Education, Malaysia, and the Universiti Malaysia Kelantan (UMK).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11356_2018_3676_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (459 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 459 kb)

References

  1. Bang DY, Kyung M, Kim MJ, Jung BY, Cho MC, Choi SM, Kim YW, Lim SK, Lim DS, Won AJ, Kwack SJ, Lee Y, Kim HS, Lee BM (2012) Human risk assessment of endocrine-disrupting chemicals derived from plastics food containers. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 11:453–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bullock WH, Ignacio JS (2006) A strategy for assessing and managing occupational exposures, 3rd edn. American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA Press), FairfaxGoogle Scholar
  3. Castro MJL, Ojeda C, Cirelli AF (2014) Advances in surfactants for agrochemicals. Environ Chem Lett 12:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christiansen S, Kortenkamp A, Axelstad M, Boberg J, Scholze M, Jacobsen PR, Faust M, Lichtensteiger W, Schlumpf M, Burdorf A, Hass U (2012) Mixtures of endocrine disrupting contaminants modelled on human high end exposures: an exploratory study in rats. Int J Androl 35:303–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cremonese C, Piccoli C, Pasqualotto F, Clapauch R, Koifman RJ, Koifman S, Freire C (2017) Occupational exposure to pesticides, reproductive hormone levels and sperm quality in young Brazilian men. Reprod Toxicol 67:174–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Damalas CA, Abdollahzadeh G (2016) Farmers’ use of personal protective equipment during handling of plant protection products: determinants of implementation. Sci Total Environ 571:730–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Defarge N, Takacs E, Lozano VL et al (2016) Co-formulants in glyphosate-based herbicides disrupt aromatase activity in human cells below toxic levels. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13:264.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13030264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. EFSA (2013a) Scientific opinion on the hazard assessment of endocrine disruptors: scientific criteria for identification of endocrine disruptors and appropriateness of existing test methods for assessing effects mediated by these substances on human health and the Environment. EFSA J 11(3):3132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EFSA (2013b) Scientific opinion on the identification of pesticides to be included in cumulative assessment groups on the basis of their toxicological profile. EFSA J 11(7):3293Google Scholar
  10. Ewence A, Rumsby P, Johnson I (2013) Extended impact assessment study of the human health and environmental criteria for endocrine disrupting substances proposed by HSE, CRD. Report number Defra9088.02. WRc plc, SwindonGoogle Scholar
  11. Ewence A, Brescia S, Johnson I, Rumsby PC (2015) An approach to the identification and regulation of endocrine disrupting pesticides. Food Chem Toxicol 78:214–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Futran Fuhrman V, Tal A, Arnon S (2015) Why endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) challenge traditional risk assessment and how to respond. J Hazard Mater 286:589–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garthwaite D, Sinclair CJ, Glass R et al (2015) Collection of pesticide application data in view of performing environmental risk assessments for pesticides. EFSA Supporting Publications 12(7):846ECrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Groβkopf C, Martin S, Mielke H et al (2013) Joint development of a new agricultural operator exposure model. BfR Wissenschaft, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. Hass U, Boberg J, Christiansen S, Jacobsen PR, Vinggaard AM, Taxvig C, Poulsen ME, Herrmann SS, Jensen BH, Petersen A, Clemmensen LH, Axelstad M (2012) Adverse effects on sexual development in rat offspring after low dose exposure to a mixture of endocrine disrupting pesticides. Reprod Toxicol 34:261–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hernandez AF, Tsatsakis AM (2017) Human exposure to chemical mixtures: challenges for the integration of toxicology with epidemiology data in risk assessment. Food Chem Toxicol 103:188–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hossain F, Ali O, D’Souza UJA, Naing DKS (2010) Effects of pesticide use on semen quality among farmers in rural areas of Sabah, Malaysia. J Occup Health 52:353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kienzler A, Bopp SK, van der Linden S, Berggren E, Worth A (2016) Regulatory assessment of chemical mixtures: requirements, current approaches and future perspectives. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 80:321–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kortenkamp A, Faust M, Scholze M, Backhaus T (2007) Low-level exposure to multiple chemicals: reason for human health concerns? Environ Health Perspect 115:106–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewis KA, Tzilivakis J, Warner DJ, Green A (2016) An international database for pesticide risk assessments and management. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J 22:1050–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lichtenberg B, Mischke U, Scherf S, Rover M, Martin S (2015) Hazard and risk based allocation of safety instruction to operators handling pesticides. J. Consum Protect Food Saf 10:373–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu P, Song X, Yuan W, Wen W, Wu X, Li J, Chen X (2006) Effects of cypermethrin and methyl parathion mixtures on hormone levels and immune functions in Wistar rats. Arch Toxicol 80:449–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lv X, Pan L, Wang J, Lu L, Yan W, Zhu Y, Xu Y, Guo M, Zhuang S (2017) Effects of triazole fungicides on androgenic disruption and CYP3A4 enzyme activity. Environ Pollut 222:504–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manibusan MK, Touart LW (2017) A comprehensive review of regulatory test methods for endocrine adverse health effects. Crit Rev Toxicol 47:433–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marx-Stoelting P, Niemann L, Ritz V, Ulbrich B, Gall A, Hirsch-Ernst KI, Pfeil R, Solecki R (2014) Assessment of three approaches for regulatory decision making on pesticides with endocrine disrupting properties. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 70:590–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marx-Stoelting P, Pfeil R, Ritz V (2016) Science-based decision matrix for the identification of endocrine disruptors for regulatory purposes. J Verbr Lebensm 11:203–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mehrpour O, Karrari P, Zamani N, Tsatsakis AM, Abdollahi M (2014) Occupational exposure to pesticides and consequences on male semen and fertility: a review. Toxicol Lett 230:146–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Melching-Kollmuss S, Fussell KC, Schneider S, Buesen R, Groeters S, Strauss V, van Ravenzwaay B (2017) Comparing effect levels of regulatory studies with endpoints derived in targeted anti-androgenic studies: example prochloraz. Arch Toxicol 91:143–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mesnage R, Phedonos A, Biserni M, Arno M, Balu S, Corton JC, Ugarte R, Antoniou MN (2017) Evaluation of estrogen receptor alpha activation by glyphosate-based herbicide constituents. Food Chem Toxicol 108:30–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mullin CA, Fine JD, Reynolds RD, Frazier MT (2016) Toxicological risks of agrochemical spray adjuvants: organosilicone surfactants may not be safe. Front Public Health 4:92.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. OECD (2012) Guidance document on standardised test guidelines for evaluating chemicals for endocrine disruption. Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and the Working Party on Chemicals, Pesticides and Biotechnology. ENV/JM/MONO(2012)22. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono%282012%2922&doclanguage=en. Accessed 15 March 2018
  32. Panizzi S, Suciu NA, Trevisan M (2017) Combined ecotoxicological risk assessment in the frame of European authorisation of pesticides. Sci Total Environ 580:136–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. PPDB (2018) The Pesticide Properties Database (PPDB) developed by the Agriculture & Environment Research Unit (AERY), University of Hertfordshire, funded by UK national sources and the EU-funded Footprint Project (FP6-SSP-022704). http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/atoz.htm. Accessed 15 March 2018
  34. Rizzati V, Briand O, Guillou H, Gamet-Payrastre L (2016) Effects of pesticide mixtures in human and animal models: an update of the recent literature. Chem Biol Interact 254:231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rocheleau CM, Romitti PA, Dennis LK (2009) Pesticides and hypospadias: a meta-analysis. J Pediatr Urol 5:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sarigiannis DA, Hansen U (2012) Considering the cumulative risk of mixtures of chemicals – a challenge for policy makers. Environ Health 11:S18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sidorkiewicz I, Zareba K, Wolczynski S, Czerniecki J (2017) Endocrine-disrupting chemicals – mechanism of action on male reproductive system. Toxicol Ind Health 33:601–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Slama R, Bourguignon J, Demeneix B et al (2016) Scientific issues relevant to setting regulatory criteria to identify endocrine-disrupting substances in the European Union. Environ Health Perspect 124:1497–1503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Solecki R, Kortenkamp A, Bergman A, Chahoud I, Degen GH, Dietrich D, Greim H, Håkansson H, Hass U, Husoy T, Jacobs M, Jobling S, Mantovani A, Marx-Stoelting P, Piersma A, Ritz V, Slama R, Stahlmann R, van den Berg M, Zoeller RT, Boobis AR (2017) Scientific principles for the identification of endocrine-disrupting chemicals: a consensus statement. Arch Toxicol 91:1001–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Teng M, Qi S, Zhu W, Wang Y, Wang D, Dong K, Wang C (2018) Effects of the bioconcentration and parental transfer of environmentally relevant concentrations of difenoconazole on endocrine disruption in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Environ Pollut 233:208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Testai E, Galli CL, Dekant W, Marinovich M, Piersma AH, Sharpe RM (2013) A plea for risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Toxicology 314:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vandenberg LN, Colborn T, Hayes TB, Heindel JJ, Jacobs DR Jr, Lee DH, Shioda T, Soto AM, vom Saal FS, Welshons WV, Zoeller RT, Myers JP (2012) Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses. Endocr Rev 33:378–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. WHO/IPCS (2002) Global assessment of the state-of-the-science of endocrine disruptors. http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/new_issues/endocrine_disruptors/en/. Accessed 15 Jan 2018
  44. Wong HL, Garthwaite DG, Ramwell CT, Brown CD (2018) Assessment of exposure of professional agricultural operators to pesticides. Sci Total Environ 619-620:874–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yusoff SNM, Kamari A, Aljafree NFA (2016) A review of materials used as carrier agents in pesticide formulations. Int J Enviorn Sci Technol 13:2977–2994CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environment DepartmentUniversity of YorkYorkUK
  2. 2.Faculty of Earth ScienceUniversity Malaysia KelantanJeliMalaysia
  3. 3.Fera Science Ltd. (Fera)Sand HuttonYorkUK

Personalised recommendations